Who Are You Voting For This Election

[Blackcat31]

Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

But it doesn't. There is NO proof of this. It's just something that is repeated over and over and for some reason believed.
Head Start and the federal government did it's own study into the effectiveness of Head Start and they themselves, said the program is not a success.

They can not SHOW that there is any benefit for these kids beyond 3rd grade and cannot prove or show that children NEED Head Start...they gain the same benefits via quality care. Which can be in many forms...not a Head Start classroom with an over inflated budget and reckless spending.

That ^^ is what I feel is continually ignored. We CAN give children what they need and can do it with a much smaller budget and without so many government regulations.

For years people have challenged those that believe in Head Start and structured/academic based early childhood education to post links or studies proving the benefit of these programs and so far no one has been able to do that.

The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

This is a good program but one that is so widely and easily abused that it needs a complete overhaul. I've been in this business for over 2 decades and my area is very low income (I live on the Iron Range where the mining industry governs our economy) so usually more than 50% of families in my area use child care subsidy to pay for their child care costs. I am well aware of how this program benefits families...and it's not in the way it was intended. Those that truly use the program as intended are few and far between.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

Its the implementation of the program and monitoring of how it's used that is the problem.

These programs continue to give more and more rather than teaching towards self sufficiency.

It's the working families that can't afford to live. The families that struggle just above the "low income" guidelines....its those families that have to choose between child care and food. It's those families that are left out.
I see it every single day and have hundreds of examples of how we are not helping anyone UP but instead are funding bad choices.

I feel to ignore that is reckless.


I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

I plan to work hard to make sure that trends don't shift from family care to school based by not voting for HRC.
She supports that very movement.

To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

The anti-government attitude is due to the fact that the government does VERY little to help or assist child care providers.

We are the very foundation of whether or not the public school teachers (who are respected, recognized and celebrated) can successfully teach these children when they get to school.

If family child care providers and parents do not set a good foundation for early learning the teachers will fail so why are we so forgotten, underpaid, disrespected and disregarded?

The anti-government attitude comes from the fact that the government does so little to support us in any way. A couple tax breaks here and there is far from compensation. I am grateful that so many providers feel so passionate about this job because without that passion there would be little reason to remain in this profession.
The pay is awful, the benefits are non-existent and the number of hours we put in are astronomical compared to public school teachers.

Yet many feel our jobs are more important than public school teachers.

That gap in the thought process is what confuses and saddens me.


Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.

This last paragraph is where I will somewhat agree but until there are some fundamental changes FOR child care providers (changes that will benefit and support them) the anti-government attitude will remain.

[mommyneedsadayoff]

"I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves." Tom Copeland.

Totally agree with this. The greater good is ignored by some in exchange for what will benefit the individual. This country won't function on an "every man for himself" mentality. It will crumble. It must be a "one for all, all for one" mentality to be truly successful.

I think that is the biggest problem, though. Our country was founded on individual liberty and is why we are a republic. The majority is not suppose to govern the minority. Our government programs benefit some at the EXPENSE of others. I think most people want to help people out, make sure they have food, health care, ect., but genuine and efficient help does not happen when the government is the middle man with the money. They waste too much and the people who were suppose to be helped get caught in the shuffle.

I agree with BC on headstart and universal preschool. Headstart has not proven to be more educationally beneficial than traditional daycare, so to me, it is "free" daycare. We have early headstart, so from birth on, it is available for those with lower income. As BC said, the people who are suffering the most are those int he middle class who make just a bit too much to qualify for anything, but don't make enough to not live paycheck to paycheck. I have been this person for a while now. I hate to admit it, but I thought about quitting my job so we could qualify for help with health care. If I had cut my income by a few hundred each month, we would have qualified for subsidized health care and since my insurance premium was more than the income cut, it honestly made more sense to do it that way, but I couldn't do it It didn't feel right, but it stinks that those are the options and I know that most people take the first option, because it makes life easier, but the system won't be able to keep up imo

[Thriftylady]

I think that is the biggest problem, though. Our country was founded on individual liberty and is why we are a republic. The majority is not suppose to govern the minority. Our government programs benefit some at the EXPENSE of others. I think most people want to help people out, make sure they have food, health care, ect., but genuine and efficient help does not happen when the government is the middle man with the money. They waste too much and the people who were suppose to be helped get caught in

I agree with BC on headstart and universal preschool. Headstart has not proven to be more educationally beneficial than traditional daycare, so to me, it is "free" daycare. We have early headstart, so from birth on, it is available for those with lower income. As BC said, the people who are suffering the most are those int he middle class who make just a bit too much to qualify for anything, but don't make enough to not live paycheck to paycheck. I have been this person for a while now. I hate to admit it, but I thought about quitting my job so we could qualify for help with health care. If I had cut my income by a few hundred each month, we would have qualified for subsidized health care and since my insurance premium was more than the income cut, it honestly made more sense to do it that way, but I couldn't do it It didn't feel right, but it stinks that those are the options and I know that most people take the first option, because it makes life easier, but the system won't be able to keep up imo

I agree with this!! The whole problem with the government funding things is what has gotten us in the debt we are in. It isn't helping the "working" class at all. It is helping those who don't work As far as the food program, well yeah I think we should nix it. It ISN'T about serving healthy foods to kids. It is about forcing providers and schools to buy unhealthy subsidized foods. I was on it years ago, and unless and until something changes will never be again. As far as tax credits, the people that need them most aren't paying as much in taxes as a general rule anyway. So not sure about that one. And as far as home providers deducting expenses, I don't see that as any different than any other business, home or otherwise, that isn't a child care issue, simply a tax issue. Head start is a whole other sore spot with me. DD was being fought over by the district PRE K and HS when she was assessed. HS sold me all these promises about how much more kids learned at HS, being broken into smaller groups and such. Come to find out it was a glorified daycare, the same thing I was at the time running in my home!

The government was never meant to rule with an iron fist, but more and more they are. They are taking over our workplaces and our homes. And sadly we (as a people) are allowing it.

[Michael]

I don't think anyone here is saying they are against government programs. Some are helpful but when is an agency or program too over-reaching and repressive? When is the proverbial "canary in the coalmine" moment where people decide to make change. There needs to be a balance between what the government wants as a national standard and what the public perceives as their need for freedom and to raise the livelihoods of their families. That balance is too one sided these days.

If its not working, its time to change course. When the government takes power from the public, giving back that control will not go unchallenged and becomes burdensome.

An example, there is a video I posted in another thread by Michael Moore, that showed in Finland, once the school system got rid of homework and shortened the school day to four hours, they went from #29 in the world education ranking to #1.

They found that children and parents, when allowed to find interest and happiness in what they wanted, improved and absorbed education better. Less imposed regulation gave them the freedom to find what naturally worked. I think we can make the same argument in childcare.

Its an interesting watch: https://youtu.be/54EpTVvm00A

[Thriftylady]

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

Define "free" education. When I enrolled DD (now 17) in Kindy, it cost me well over $200! First grade and second grade a bit more. At the time DS was in Middle school, and his was nearly $300 a year. And that didn't include special classes with extra fees such as art or wood shop.

Now I will say here in Ohio, we pay $20 a year. And for DD that means she also is in college classes earning college credits. Next year, her senior year she will be taking all of her classes at the community college for her $20 a year. That also doesn't include special classes like art that need supplies, but it is more "free" than when we were in KS. So not every child gets a "free" education. Those on free/reduced lunches do get fees cut in half, but at $200 or more a year, half still isn't free.

[Blackcat31]

I don't think anyone here is saying they are against government programs. Some are helpful but when is an agency or program too over-reaching and repressive? When is the proverbial "canary in the coalmine" moment where people decide to make change. There needs to be a balance between what the government wants as a national standard and what the public perceives as their need for freedom and to raise the livelihoods of their families. That balance is too one sided these days.

If its not working, its time to change course. When the government takes power from the public, giving back that control will not go unchallenged and becomes burdensome.

An example, there is a video I posted in another thread by Michael Moore, that showed in Finland, once the school system got rid of homework and shortened the school day to four hours, they went from #29 in the world education ranking to #1.

They found that children and parents, when allowed to find interest and happiness in what they wanted, improved and absorbed education better. Less imposed regulation gave them the freedom to find what naturally worked. I think we can make the same argument in childcare.

Its an interesting watch: https://youtu.be/54EpTVvm00A

Yes to bolded above! I won't support universal preschool in ANY way simply because one size does not fit all. Education should be individualized not standardized and parents should have the freedom to choose while children should have a right to play.

[Thriftylady]

Yes to bolded above! I won't support universal preschool in ANY way simply because one size does not fit all. Education should be individualized not standardized and parents should have the freedom to choose while children should have a right to play.

AMEN! I love watching children learn, but you shouldn't shove it down the throats of young children not yet ready. And parents (caregivers) of each child should be making these choices.

[Unregistered]

Sully the cat
Steve the turtle
Aspen the dog
Or maybe the ants that come in can get a collective vote. Everyone else ****s!!!!!

[mommyneedsadayoff]

I don't think anyone here is saying they are against government programs. Some are helpful but when is an agency or program too over-reaching and repressive? When is the proverbial "canary in the coalmine" moment where people decide to make change. There needs to be a balance between what the government wants as a national standard and what the public perceives as their need for freedom and to raise the livelihoods of their families. That balance is too one sided these days.

If its not working, its time to change course. When the government takes power from the public, giving back that control will not go unchallenged and becomes burdensome.

An example, there is a video I posted in another thread by Michael Moore, that showed in Finland, once the school system got rid of homework and shortened the school day to four hours, they went from #29 in the world education ranking to #1.

They found that children and parents, when allowed to find interest and happiness in what they wanted, improved and absorbed education better. Less imposed regulation gave them the freedom to find what naturally worked. I think we can make the same argument in childcare.

Its an interesting watch: https://youtu.be/54EpTVvm00A

I will sit on the fence alone here, but I am against government programs in their present state. At the very least, I am against expanding them if they are not successful. I don't think they work. I can't support something that is inefficient and wastes money, just like I wouldn't invest my money in a company that is not succeeding. It would not make sense.

As for the last two bolded areas, I just want to say that I don't think that is possible. Once you give power to the government, they will not give it back. They set a standard and everyone who cannot meet it gets left behind. The issue is that many people want government to set that standard and to regulate their lives, their livelihood, education, healthcare, ect. We have seen that they are not very good at it and waste our money. I have seen thread after thread abut regulations on providers and how most on this site want government to butt out a bit or at least spread the cost of those regulations on to everyone, not just the provider. Why would we think government can take on more and do better, when they have not proven they can successfully handle what they already control? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Laurel]

I haven't read all the replies but just have a general comment.

Since they are finding out that preschool doesn't give children a real head start as they catch up in the early grades anyway, they need to re-evaluate what they want to do about this. But that isn't exclusive to the Head Start program. That is ANY preschool. So if this program isn't working they need to figure out which way to go with this.

I think it would be hard for any candidate to know this topic like we do. Hillary Clinton needs to be educated on it. That won't affect how I vote as I am not a one issue voter.

One other issue child care providers have is that they are not organized in any meaningful way (except we are here in Florida). That is why they implemented QRIS that most of us hate (but they didn't in Florida.......just saying). We fought it as a group.

I understand the anti government stance (with various issues) because sometimes government does waste money and there are people that cheat the system and there are flaws in the system. This is true in private business also. What I don't get is the EXTREME hate of all things government. I rather like Social Security and Medicare. I am glad there are food stamps (now called SNAP cards) even though there is some abuse of the system. I think it sure beats begging on street corners.

Most people, either liberal or conservative, are decent hard working people who want to be self sufficient. But sometimes we have a little trouble (our family got food stamps for a while when my children were little) and need a hand up. I think it is generally a 'pie in the sky' idea that if we get rid of government social programs that everyone will be forced to just step up and somehow help themselves when they are without a job or sick or have no relatives to help. On the other hand, I think government interferes too much with things like child care regulations. QRIS is NUTS! We need a balance.

[Laurel]

P.S. I hate it when the extreme anti government people say "Well sure we want people who truly need help to get it but we don't believe in food stamps/welfare." Huh? I wonder what this means. You can't really have it both ways unless you set up some private programs and they don't have to be fair to everyone by law like government programs do. It seems it would be better if those people and all of us would just work to close loopholes, catch cheaters and make the program work instead of wanting to scrap it....and for what? What is an alternative?

[Thriftylady]

P.S. I hate it when the extreme anti government people say "Well sure we want people who truly need help to get it but we don't believe in food stamps/welfare." Huh? I wonder what this means. You can't really have it both ways unless you set up some private programs and they don't have to be fair to everyone by law like government programs do. It seems it would be better if those people and all of us would just work to close loopholes, catch cheaters and make the program work instead of wanting to scrap it....and for what? What is an alternative?

I don't have an issue with things like food stamps for people who need them for a short time. We were on them for a short time. I do have an issue with them when people don't work for years and years and sit and get free rent, free groceries, free or next to it utilities, etc. Those programs are supposed to help people through a tough time, not become a way of life. And I have seen many people make it a way of life. I remember when I was in HS there was a girl about my age. Mom knew her mom and the mother told my mother that she was pushing her 16 yr old to have another baby (she already had one), so they could get more money and food stamps. Those people are out there, more than you think. THAT is my issue with the way the programs are handled.

[sleepinghart]

Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.

(^bolding^ by me)
~I am not entitled to any of those things. I may, or may not receive them, but I am not entitled to them in any way. I'm also not necessarily "for" things that may benefit me.

[Controlled Chaos]

My vote will NOT go to someone that does not support the second amendment.

I am curios about what you mean by this. Do you think any of the candidates are going to over turn or abolish the second amendment?

Are you opposed to stricter gun laws regarding background checks, closing loopholes at gun shows, requiring gun safety classes?

I grew up in a hunting house, but would love any candidate who made getting a gun like driving a car. ie licenses that need renewed, safety/competency test, and guns registered. etc. I also don't see a need for weapons that fire multiple rounds without reloading. I don't think their deadliness makes sense on a civilian level. Rifles for hunting great. Smaller guns that can be concealed for safety are fine.

Hope this isn't too OT

[sleepinghart]

~This may be a little OT, but all this talk of government and government programs & benefits and government programs helping and benefiting folks has reminded me of the nine most terrifying words in the English language..."I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".